Document text
Red-light camera case raises questions By Mail Tribune Editorial Board Sep 25, 2022 12:00 AM A A We’ve all seen the red-light cameras strategically placed at busy intersections around Medford. Some of us may have been the recipients of traffic tickets mailed to us because the camera snapped our vehicle when it was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Most motorists might shrug their shoulders and pay the fine, figuring there is little chance of fighting the citation in court and winning. Others might shake a fist at this manifestation of the surveillance state, but still pay up. Not Glenn Gumaer. The local chiropractor is challenging the red-light camera system in court, specifically the intersection of Stewart Avenue and Barnett Road, where a camera caught his Porsche failing to stop for a yellow light and not making it through before the signal turned red. Gumaer may have a good shot at winning his case — and the class-action suit he plans to file on behalf of many others cited in similar situations. Before you dismiss this as a disgruntled driver who’s just upset because he got caught breaking the law, think again. No one wants to see drivers get away with running red lights. A motorist who blows through a red light endangers other drivers, pedestrians, themselves and any passengers in their vehicle. Cameras are a more efficient way to ticket drivers than relying on police officers, who can’t be everywhere all the time. But Gumaer didn’t run a red light. He ran a yellow one, and that’s where his case gets interesting. Unlike many states, Oregon law says drivers must stop for yellow lights — unless it would be unsafe to do so. That makes it a judgment call. A police officer who observes a vehicle running through a yellow light at least has a sense of whether the driver could have stopped safely. Even then, the driver might argue the point. But a camera doesn’t have the capability of exercising judgment. The answer, for the automated camera system, is to set the traffic light to stay yellow long enough for a vehicle traveling the speed limit to make it through the intersection before the light turns red. Gumaer asked to see the video of his vehicle, which the city will show drivers on request. He discovered that the yellow light lasted only 3.5 seconds. But state Department of Transportation policy sets the minimum time for a yellow light in a 35 mph zone at 4 seconds. Engineer Mats Jarlstrom, who sued the city of Beaverton after his wife was ticketed with red-light camera, eventually proved the intersection in question was incorrectly timed. Jarlstrom says it actually takes at least 5 seconds to stop a vehicle going 35 mph. Interestingly enough, the city of Medford has recently changed the yellow light duration at Barnett and Stewart from 3.5 to 4.9 seconds, but officials won’t say why, citing potential litigation. Besides the timing of yellow lights, other factors also influence a driver’s split-second decision to stop or proceed when approaching a light that turns yellow. Suppose the pavement is wet, or icy. Suppose the vehicle behind is tailgating, and braking might result in a rear-end collision. Complicating the situation further, the city earns considerable revenue from its red-light camera system. By one estimate, the city took in $1.6 million in fines in four years just from the Barnett-Stewart intersection. Everyone wants safe streets, and drivers who recklessly ignore traffic laws should be punished. But Gumaer’s case raises questions of basic fairness. It will be interesting to see how it comes out.